Perhaps it is the mindset of recent years in this country that we should be examining here. We live in one of the most divided periods in US history. Our media and government have created a culture of fear. Our schools have been ineffective in delivering the tools citizens need to determine fact from noise from doublespeak. The fact is that emotional people have great difficulty making rational decisions. While one can argue that this tragedy would not have been as bad without guns, @jesse makes the valid point that guns are not necessary to prevent psychopaths from wreaking havoc.
The promotion of absolutism by our media and leaders will likely play a role in this massacre. Whether it's learned that he had a political, religious, or some other agenda, you can bet he felt his actions were justified.
tenben62 said, "Can any PRIVATE organization not have to bow down to the PC mafia without being pummeled with the the "bigot" label, especially by people who apparently do not know that the "bigot" really is."
I suppose discrimination and bigotry is OK as long as it takes place under the cloak of a private entity? While I don't feel the Boy Scouts, as a private organization, should be compelled by government to change their values or policies, I do feel they should do so voluntarily.
The Boy Scouts' status as a "private organization" is a moot point in the overall argument. The fact is that the Boy Scouts operate in a very public arena and are, therefore, subject to public scrutiny and criticism. That the Boy Scouts continue to support and promote institutionalized bigotry is of importance because it is such a large organization and, as Jack_Dennis so eloquently points out, a ubiquitous part of American culture. As we fight to eliminate bullying in schools, this youth organization is essentially saying, "except for homosexuals."
Of course there is no civil rights issue here. Separate but equal worked just fine in the last century.
Do some research, TOES2800. Non-reproductive and homosexual sex is fairly common in nature. The argument that homosexual couples cannot reproduce is moot. The planet is overpopulated.
Also, animals cannot give informed consent to marry people. Human-animal marriage is a ridiculous, slippery slope argument.
Still waiting for a reasonable argument against gay marriage.
Nothing divides like those who think there is no other way than the one they want. Unless someone is forcing you into a gay marriage, no one is imposing on you. Don't like gay marriage? Then don't participate in a gay marriage. While I have asked before, I have yet to see a reasonable response to the query, "How exactly does gay marriage threaten or harm the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?"
I can't think of any other health-related industry that has "been hijacked by people who are in this to get rich and don't care at all about sick people." Good point, though.
Why is it significant that "team from the University of Tennessee’s Anthropological Research Facility in Knoxville" was "all-female?"
The restaurant's name is IHOP, not iHop. We wouldn't want to mislead the Apple fans into thinking that the company was opening some sort of exercise place.
Apparently Ms. Nichols did not realize that she can post responses to comments on the page where they were made and felt the need to post what must seem to most as a random message on my profile. For those of you who are interested, my original post, which was in reaction to Ms. Nichols' letter to the editor, can be found here. My response to Ms. Nichols' above comment may be found here. She must give at least one whit about my opinion since she felt compelled to sign up to this site for the sole purpose of telling me that she cares not a whit about it.
Welcome to the community, Ms. Nichols. I'm sure we'll cross paths again soon.
If you would like to quibble over language, I suggest you reread your letter to the editor, Ms. Nichols. I did not call you ignorant. I wrote that your sentiments, as I read them, are shameful and ignorant. Perhaps your sentiments are not ignorant. I was simply trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If they are not ignorant, then they were, at best, lacking in compassion and at worst, mean-spirited. Either way, it is not name-calling. Your reaction to my post belies your true feelings about my opinion.